Arrested under "PATRIOT" act...

[Lord Kenneth]

http://www.raisethefist.com/news.cgi?artical=wire/-----74814smallsherm.gifIMG.article

Any thoughts? I am personally horrified.

[shanek]

A blatant violation of Sherman's First Amendment rights. And the judge, who is supposed to be the last line of defense against the abrogation of our rights, gives him a sentence three times as much as the prosecutors, FBI, and the Justice Department wanted!

I only hope someone has the funds to take this to the Supreme Court. But by the time all of that happens, his sentence will be long over anyway.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by shanek
A blatant violation of Sherman's First Amendment rights. And the judge, who is supposed to be the last line of defense against the abrogation of our rights, gives him a sentence three times as much as the prosecutors, FBI, and the Justice Department wanted!

I only hope someone has the funds to take this to the Supreme Court. But by the time all of that happens, his sentence will be long over anyway.

Rights? What rights? :(

[American]

He put bomb-making instructions on the web. There shouldn't have been a trial, rather a 500 lb bomb dropped on his house from an F-16 is more fitting for him.


"all enemies, foreign and domestic."

[Richard G]

He waived his right to a jury trial. Thats his dumb fault.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Richard G
He waived his right to a jury trial. Thats his dumb fault.

Who know what a jury trial would have gotten him into? If the prosecution just repeated "he is a terrorist" often enough, it would not have been just one year...

He put bomb-making instructions on the web. There shouldn't have been a trial, rather a 500 lb bomb dropped on his house from an F-16 is more fitting for him.

American, I really hope the second sentence was ironic.

[evildave]

Yeah. Bombing would help.

500 pounds of TNT?

Blow his house and every house within a block of his. GREAT IDEA!

No wonder bombing/cruise missiles don't pacify anything. Just p!sses people off worse.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Chaos


Who know what a jury trial would have gotten him into? If the prosecution just repeated "he is a terrorist" often enough, it would not have been just one year...



.
That is why you have a defence. You make it sound completely one sided.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Ed

That is why you have a defence. You make it sound completely one sided.

I guess that depends on how much "hyped up" about terrorism the jury is. And how zealous the prosecution is - from what he went through after being arrested, I guess they´d make the jurors believe this guy is Osama´s stepson.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Chaos


I guess that depends on how much "hyped up" about terrorism the jury is. And how zealous the prosecution is - from what he went through after being arrested, I guess they´d make the jurors believe this guy is Osama´s stepson.

OJ Simpson can beat a double murder rap with his blood all over the crime scene. I think this "they will say terrorist and the jury will say hang him" stuff is nonsense.

[Lord Kenneth]

What, exactly, were his reasons to waiving a trial by jury? If you don't know, why comment on them? He shouldn't be in jail, he did nothing wrong.

[American]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
What, exactly, were his reasons to waiving a trial by jury? If you don't know, why comment on them? He shouldn't be in jail, he did nothing wrong.


Providing bomb-making instructions to an omnipresent audience is wrong.

He should be tied to a chair and then have a team use his own instructions to test out his method, asking him at each step if they are doing it correctly. Then test it in front of him, where he may die by the device in a beautiful blast of irony.

This would have to happen before the F-16 turns his home into a smoking crater.

[evildave]

Probably because he doesn't have the CASH $$$ to afford the sort of attorney that can even get justice, let alone "OJ" style justice.

Where's it established that he actually provided "bomb making" instructions? A few years ago, the "Anarchist's Cookbook" was available at Tower Records. Shouldn't the FBI be busting down their doors, too?

No, he had a cheap (or free) lawyer who's only defensive tactic was negotiate for lower sentences and "roll over" for any case the prosecution can make.

[American]

Originally posted by evildave

...the "Anarchist's Cookbook" was available at Tower Records. Shouldn't the FBI be busting down their doors, too?


$17.99 for the new Bare Naked Ladies CD? Yes.

[Cain]

He's an anarchist.

We should invade their communes, kill their webmasters and convert them to statism. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war. A war on terrorism.

[ssibal]

What does this case have to do with the Patriot Act?

[shemp]

It's one thing to be liberal and advocate change. It's another thing to be a violence-advocating anarchist and spread such destructive information. Despite my hatred of the "Patriot Act" I can't feel any sympathy for this clown.

Here's something that shows what a fecking idiot he and his followers are:

http://www.raisethefist.com/news.cgi?artical=wire/-----717533t4a.article

This is lifted straight from The Onion. They are too stupid to even know that The Onion is a parody.

http://www.theonion.com/3939/news1.html

Soory LK, but this guy is a lousy poster boy for the liberal cause. No real liberal would agree with his insane ranting.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Richard G
He waived his right to a jury trial. Thats his dumb fault.

So? He shouldn't even have been arrested in the first place!

[shanek]

Originally posted by shemp
No real liberal would agree with his insane ranting.

But I would hope all of them would agree with his right to rant insanely.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


But I would hope all of them would agree with his right to rant insanely.

In theory. However, I'd like to see some objective accounts of the case rather than this guy's first hand rambling about "look what they did to me."

I have a funny feeling it is not as simple as he says. This group's general cluelessness as Shemp pointed out hardly makes me likely to accept their accounts of the case as fact.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Suddenly


In theory. However, I'd like to see some objective accounts of the case rather than this guy's first hand rambling about "look what they did to me."

I have a funny feeling it is not as simple as he says. This group's general cluelessness as Shemp pointed out hardly makes me likely to accept their accounts of the case as fact.

Agreed completely. I've heard quite enough first hand accounts about "what happened to me" and later learned there is far more to the story the teller has omitted. Objective accounts, or at least considering also the opposing accounts, provide a great way to get a more balanced view of the whole picture.

Gosh, the latter sounds kind of like our adversarial system of trials in the UK, Australia, and the US.

AS

[shanek]

Okay, here's more information:

http://www.sfbayview.com/100803/webmaster100803.shtml

Twenty-year-old Sherman Austin is now in federal prison because of a website which was authored by another young man and linked to a free hosting area on Sherman’s site, www.raisethefist.com.

Sherman’s site has been an open one, available to anyone wanting to post articles or use space. This other young man’s site included crude instructions on how to make explosives.

Sherman was prosecuted under a 1997 law sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, which makes it illegal to distribute information related to explosives with the intent to use that information in a “federal crime of violence.”

The young man who authored the website with the bomb-making instructions has not been charged with anything, but Sherman is now in federal prison. The other young man is white and the son of wealthy Orange County Republicans; Sherman is African American and the son of a single mother with no property.

The key element in the case against Sherman hinged on the question of “intent,” and because Sherman’s site espouses anarchism and is critical of U.S. government policy, police brutality, globalization and racism, the prosecution and judge maintained that his politics provided grounds for intent.

As to why he didn't want a jury trial:

Sherman was told a PATRIOT Act “terrorist enhancement” would be applied to his case if he went to trial. This meant he would have been subjected to 20 years in prison if found guilty. Sherman accepted a plea bargain, which the judge, a Reagan appointee, subsequently rejected, sentencing Sherman to a term longer than what the prosecution suggested.

[shemp]

Originally posted by shanek
Okay, here's more information:

http://www.sfbayview.com/100803/webmaster100803.shtml



As to why he didn't want a jury trial:



If this report is true, then the only thing he seems guilty of is stupidity. People should be a lot more careful about what they host, but they shouldn't have to go to jail for it.

And yes, I do support his right to rant insanely.

However, he and his followers are still completely clueless. If you can't tell the difference between The Onion and reality, you and your ideas can't be taken seriously.

[ImpyTimpy]

Is this article true? I mean seriously people, there's something very screwed up in the U.S. if this story is true... Seems like your individual rights are no longer applicable as long as the state can simply label you a terrorist.

:eek:

[ssibal]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Is this article true? I mean seriously people, there's something very screwed up in the U.S. if this story is true... Seems like your individual rights are no longer applicable as long as the state can simply label you a terrorist.

:eek:

This case has nothing to do with being labeled a terrorist, he was breaking the Feinstein law. Apparantly, the only terrorism aspect was that his crime can be considered terrorism. Either way, he was breaking existing laws.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by ssibal


This case has nothing to do with being labeled a terrorist, he was breaking the Feinstein law. Apparantly, the only terrorism aspect was that his crime can be considered terrorism. Either way, he was breaking existing laws.

Oops! You missed:

Sherman was told a PATRIOT Act “terrorist enhancement” would be applied to his case if he went to trial. This meant he would have been subjected to 20 years in prison if found guilty. Sherman accepted a plea bargain, which the judge, a Reagan appointee, subsequently rejected, sentencing Sherman to a term longer than what the prosecution suggested.

[shanek]

Originally posted by shemp
If this report is true, then the only thing he seems guilty of is stupidity. People should be a lot more careful about what they host, but they shouldn't have to go to jail for it.

He didn't even host it! Someone else did and linked to his site. He's in jail because he "encouraged" this. You'll note that the guy who did write and host it isn't in jail...Tell me this isn't about grandstanding!

However, he and his followers are still completely clueless.

I didn't know that was a crime. If it were, don't you think the prisons would be even more overcrowded than they are now?

[shanek]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Is this article true? I mean seriously people, there's something very screwed up in the U.S. if this story is true... Seems like your individual rights are no longer applicable as long as the state can simply label you a terrorist.

:eek:

Welcome to America, post-9/11.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
Either way, he was breaking existing laws.

Well, I guess it's like that Oingo Boingo song: "What happens when you break the law? / What happens when the rules aren't fair? / We all know where we go from there / To the house of pain."

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by shanek


Well, I guess it's like that Oingo Boingo song: "What happens when you break the law? / What happens when the rules aren't fair? / We all know where we go from there / To the house of pain."

Don't let Tony see you've written that.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Oops! You missed:



Like I said, "his crime can be considered terrorism." Either way he broke the law.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by ssibal


This case has nothing to do with being labeled a terrorist, he was breaking the Feinstein law. Apparantly, the only terrorism aspect was that his crime can be considered terrorism. Either way, he was breaking existing laws.

Yes, and I'm sure we were all familiar with the 1997 Feinstein law :rolleyes:

The fact that the ACTUAL author of the site, the wealthy white kid, didn't even get charged should be enough to expose this case for what it really is.

Ironically all they have done is validated the very point at the Sherman was making...

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by ssibal


Like I said, "his crime can be considered terrorism." Either way he broke the law.

He didn't author the web page, someone else did and just linked it on his site.

[evildave]

That's OK, Pat Robertson called for nuclear devices to be smuggled into Federal buildings. Like in Oklahoma, only in Washington.

You see, it's OK to use your access to the mass media calling for terrorist acts against our government, IF IT'S FOR A CHRISTIAN CAUSE.

But no fanatical morons would ever listen to that guy. Any more than Christians would bomb abortion clinics.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by evildave
That's OK, Pat Robertson called for nuclear devices to be smuggled into Federal buildings. Like in Oklahoma, only in Washington.

You see, it's OK to use your access to the mass media calling for terrorist acts against our government, IF IT'S FOR A CHRISTIAN CAUSE.

But no fanatical morons would ever listen to that guy. Any more than Christians would bomb abortion clinics.

Any info on that claim?

[evildave]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Any info on that claim?

Will these do?

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/entertainment/news-article.aspx?storyid=9134
http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article_lc.asp?storyid=48420
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/10/09/robertson.state/
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=573&ncid=757&e=9&u=/nm/20031010/od_nm/people_robertson_dc

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal


Like I said, "his crime can be considered terrorism." Either way he broke the law.

Congress broke the law when they made that law.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Yes, and I'm sure we were all familiar with the 1997 Feinstein law :rolleyes:

The fact that the ACTUAL author of the site, the wealthy white kid, didn't even get charged should be enough to expose this case for what it really is.

And what is this case really? Just the big bad government out to get poor blacks? The case is old, how do you know the original site has not been charged with anything (what is the original site anyway)? If the original site is not in accordance with the law, they should be charged as well.

Ironically all they have done is validated the very point at the Sherman was making...

Oh yeah, now we should live in his little anarchist fantasy......

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Malachi151


He didn't author the web page, someone else did and just linked it on his site.

The law applies to people linking the site as well.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek


Congress broke the law when they made that law.

Whether or not you think the law is constitutional, it is the law until the Supreme Court says it is not. Do not act surprised when it is enforced.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by ssibal
And what is this case really? Just the big bad government out to get poor blacks? The case is old, how do you know the original site has not been charged with anything (what is the original site anyway)? If the original site is not in accordance with the law, they should be charged as well.


It is abuse of the law to attack people who's politcal views the government does not like.

It exposes the fact that connections and social status can make people an exception to the rules, and that as a poor black Sherman was an easy target, the rich white boy was not.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
The law applies to people linking the site as well.

He linked to Sherman's site. Sherman didn't link to anything.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Malachi151


It is abuse of the law to attack people who's politcal views the government does not like.

I am sure they do not like his political views but he still commited illegal acts.

It exposes the fact that connections and social status can make people an exception to the rules, and that as a poor black Sherman was an easy target, the rich white boy was not.

I do not know if it has already happened yet, but whoever wrote the original site should be prosecuted as well. Still, just because the author was not does not mean that Sherman should not have been. It is like being pulled over for going 20 over the speed limit while someone in the next lane was going 40 over the speed limit.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek


He linked to Sherman's site. Sherman didn't link to anything.

The site was being hosted on Sherman's site, technically a link.

*EDIT* And even Sherman knows it was a link:

SA: There was a link posted on my site to another site, which wasn't affiliated with raisethefist.com, but which was hosted on the same server because I gave hosting space to different people who wanted some free hosting. I just provided the link to that site.

http://www.counterpunch.org/merlin08162003.html

[ssibal]

For those of you interested in learning more about this case, here is a site that has a link to the site that was hosted on Sherman's server, you can also find a link to the search warrant.
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/raisethefist/

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by ssibal


The site was being hosted on Sherman's site, technically a link.

*EDIT* And even Sherman knows it was a link:



http://www.counterpunch.org/merlin08162003.html

Well, my website is hosted by Tripod. If I put law breaking information on my website should the CEO of Tripod go to jail?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Well, my website is hosted by Tripod. If I put law breaking information on my website should the CEO of Tripod go to jail?

The thing is, Tripod regularly cracks down on illegal material on their sites and shuts down those sites. If they did not then yes, whoever is responsible for monitoring them should go to jail, including the CEO.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
It is like being pulled over for going 20 over the speed limit while someone in the next lane was going 40 over the speed limit.

No, it's like being pulled over for speeding by going the speed limit but pointing at someone going over the speed limit.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
The site was being hosted on Sherman's site, technically a link.

That's NOT the same thing as Sherman linking to it himself.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
The thing is, Tripod regularly cracks down on illegal material on their sites and shuts down those sites. If they did not then yes, whoever is responsible for monitoring them should go to jail, including the CEO.

Hrmph...

We're SUPPOSED to have freedom of speech and the press in this country. But apparently, not only can you go to jail for what you say, you can go to jail for what someone else says! How is this in any way consistent with the ideals of freedom and liberty?

[evildave]

Darn, well that means that Randi could be charged for linking to a site that links there.

And what of Google? They link to all kinds of stuff that's bomb-related. Why isn't every proprieter of a web search being persecuted?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek


No, it's like being pulled over for speeding by going the speed limit but pointing at someone going over the speed limit.

In the eyes of the law, he appeared to be going over the speed limit.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek


That's NOT the same thing as Sherman linking to it himself.

Just like allowing an escaped convict who somehow enters your house to sleep there is not the same as calling him up and telling him to spend the night......:rolleyes:

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek


Hrmph...

We're SUPPOSED to have freedom of speech and the press in this country. But apparently, not only can you go to jail for what you say, you can go to jail for what someone else says! How is this in any way consistent with the ideals of freedom and liberty?

Do you also disagree with those other free speech violating laws like threatening to kill people or yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by evildave
Darn, well that means that Randi could be charged for linking to a site that links there.

And what of Google? They link to all kinds of stuff that's bomb-related. Why isn't every proprieter of a web search being persecuted?

Strawman, the issue is not bomb related material per se, it is with the intent of posting it. We are supposed to believe that someone who wants to eliminate the government allows that information on his site just for educational purposes? Right...

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater?

Distinction: Can you print "fire" in a crowded theatre?

[rikzilla]

Well, there is precident:

Most of the new anti-terrorist legislation working its way through the 104th Congress amends and strengthens The Espionage Act of 1917. An indictment under the Act charging "seditious conspiracy" must allege that the purpose of the conspiracy was the exertion of force against those charged with the duty of executing the laws of the United States. Presumably, those arrested for the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City could be charged with "seditious conspiracy."

During the 1940s and 50s many internal security laws were passed. Some of them had a very chilling effect on free speech. The Smith Act, which was passed by Congress in 1940, made it a crime to "knowingly or willfully advocate or teach the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States, or of any state or political subdivisions, by force or violence; to publish or distribute any material advocating such action, if done with intent to overthrow the government; and to be a member of, or to organize, any group which has as its purpose the overthrow of the government."

The Emergency Detention Act of 1950, which became part of the Smith Act, authorized the President, upon a declaration of an "internal security emergency," to apprehend and detain persons to whom there was "reasonable ground to believe that they probably would engage in, or would conspire with others to engage in acts of espionage or sabotage." This Act was repealed in 1971, but it is amazing to consider that the President was given the power to arrest and detain an American citizen based upon his belief that, that person might in the future, commit, try to commit, or even think about committing a crime.


Sounds like the Anarchists from "raisethefist" could ALL be jailed eh?? Wouldn't trouble me in the least. :rolleyes:

...then I found this,...

Does the internal security of the government benefit from free speech and free association? Yes! It was recognized as early as 160 years ago by Alexis de Tocqueville in his book, Democracy in America. He said, "liberty offers a security against dangers of another kind; in countries where associations are free, secret societies are unknown. In America there are numerous factions, but no conspiracies." The government's greatest internal security is the unrestrained freedom of the people to associate with whom they choose, and to freely speak and print their ideas.

Although I would not mind at all if tomorrow the earth opened up and swallowed every anarchist...I must admit that the ideal of free speech is worth fighting for, and perhaps is one of the reasons the USA has survived and thrived.

-z

[Tony]

Why is Fienstien's assault of free speech accepted?

This guy, as stupid as he is, shouldn’t be in jail.

[evildave]

Originally posted by ssibal


Strawman, the issue is not bomb related material per se, it is with the intent of posting it. We are supposed to believe that someone who wants to eliminate the government allows that information on his site just for educational purposes? Right...

Open forum. Anyone could post stuff there. Enough to put a kid in prison.

If someone posted a TNT recipe on this site, no matter how long that recipe has been public domain, all it would take is some prosecutor who doesn't like Randi's "Atheistic" message, and there's a whole ***** storm of legal problems.

After all, the biggest threat to your freedom is the million or so laws that they *usually* don't enforce, but certain people can decide to enforce if they decide they don't like you.

So stay in line, cattle, and don't worry about the guy with the pneumatic tool up at the front.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by evildave


Open forum. Anyone could post stuff there. Enough to put a kid in prison.

If someone posted a TNT recipe on this site, no matter how long that recipe has been public domain, all it would take is some prosecutor who doesn't like Randi's "Atheistic" message, and there's a whole ***** storm of legal problems.

After all, the biggest threat to your freedom is the million or so laws that they *usually* don't enforce, but certain people can decide to enforce if they decide they don't like you.

So stay in line, cattle, and don't worry about the guy with the pneumatic tool up at the front.

Exactly, I hate all the rarely enforced laws. People then try to go on about "ignorance of the law is no excuse", yeah, well there are thousands of laws on the books, some of which have not been enforced for over a decade, with these types of laws people can essentially fine SOMETHING to throw at someone that they don't like.

This guy's arrest is BS, ESPECIALLY if indeed the origional author was never charged or sentanced.

I, obviously, support the right to extreme anti-government speech. You have to support that right, because if you don't have that right then that's when you have the problem of authortarianism.

I'll pull the founding fathers here ;)

I bet that the Founding Fathers would oppose this guy's jail sentance too... well maybe not since he is black... ;)

[RPG Advocate]

Originally posted by Richard G
He waived his right to a jury trial. Thats his dumb fault.

Have to agree here. In cases like these, I think it's reasonably likely that the jury would get the idea that the terrorism enhancement is pure politics, and exercise their right of jury nullification. Failing that, it only takes one to hang a jury. Certainly, the quality of the defense attorney would enter into it. I wonder if this was a case that the ACLU (or even perhaps the EFF, considering it regards a website) would have taken pro bono.

Tolerance of extreme anti-government speech is not only important, but essential to maintaining a free society. If specific threats were made against person or property, then I could understand, but not just general instructions on how to make explosives.

Cases like these illustrate how our rights are slowly being taken away. Some people on this thread seem to support this idea. I just have to say, that when you're labelled a "terrorist" for expressing one or more views the government doesn't agree with, I won't be sympathetic.

[Kropotkin]

rikzilla, you have something against anarchists? I hope your not one of those who thinks it means chaos.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek


Distinction: Can you print "fire" in a crowded theatre?

You can print threats, libel, slander,.....etc.....all violations of your freedom of speech. When you print instructions to make explosives on a site dedicated to overthrowing the government do not act surprised when the government comes after you.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by evildave


Open forum. Anyone could post stuff there. Enough to put a kid in prison.

If someone posted a TNT recipe on this site, no matter how long that recipe has been public domain, all it would take is some prosecutor who doesn't like Randi's "Atheistic" message, and there's a whole ***** storm of legal problems.

That all depends on the intent of posting the TNT recipe.

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by ssibal


That all depends on the intent of posting the TNT recipe.

And just how do you prove intent in the first place? I mean, ok, easy one. The guy is found in the basement, half way through making a bomb with instructions on how to detonate it and where in order to cause maximum damage to the local federal building. Intent here seems fairly clear.

But here we have instructions sitting on an Internet site not even authored by the arrested person. How can you even contemplate the idea that the person intended to use the information in the first place?

I said seems in my first scenario because we can never be sure what someone intends to do. Second scenario we have absolutely no idea as to their intent - we're just making things up.

We might as well bring a psychic in and have them declare what the persons true intent is!

(edited to add)

Please note I'm saying use the information, I'm not even going to suggest they actually wanted to overthrow the government with it... That's stretching it even further.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy


And just how do you prove intent in the first place? I mean, ok, easy one. The guy is found in the basement, half way through making a bomb with instructions on how to detonate it and where in order to cause maximum damage to the local federal building. Intent here seems fairly clear.

But here we have instructions sitting on an Internet site not even authored by the arrested person. How can you even contemplate the idea that the person intended to use the information in the first place?

I said seems in my first scenario because we can never be sure what someone intends to do. Second scenario we have absolutely no idea as to their intent - we're just making things up.

How do we determine intent? That is what a trial is for, which he waived for whatever reason. I am stating my opinion. Given the nature of the site I do not believe that the information was allowed to be posted for legitimate educational purposes. Or maybe he did not even bother looking at what other people were posting on his site? Then he may have just been negligent, I do not think he was though.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
You can print threats, libel, slander,.....etc.....all violations of your freedom of speech. When you print instructions to make explosives on a site dedicated to overthrowing the government do not act surprised when the government comes after you.

Printing is freedom of the press, not freedom of speech. That's the distinction. Technically, you can't print slander, because slander isn't printed.

And these aren't restrictions on freedom because your behavior is directly harming others. That isn't the case here. Here it's a case of someone posting a link to information that someone else could use to harm somebody. Big difference.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek


Printing is freedom of the press, not freedom of speech. That's the distinction. Technically, you can't print slander, because slander isn't printed.

You are correct, but I lumped them all together because they fall under the First Amendment.

And these aren't restrictions on freedom because your behavior is directly harming others. That isn't the case here. Here it's a case of someone posting a link to information that someone else could use to harm somebody. Big difference.

I think the case is if you post the information on a chemistry website, some one could use it to harm somebody. If you post it on an anarchist website and someone is likely to use it to harm somebody. You have to take things in context.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by ssibal

I think the case is if you post the information on a chemistry website, some one could use it to harm somebody. If you post it on an anarchist website and someone is likely to use it to harm somebody. You have to take things in context.

If someone wants to find out how to build a bomb, he won´t check anarchist websites; he´ll probably just google a few keywords.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
You are correct, but I lumped them all together because they fall under the First Amendment.

But there are different standards for each. Which was my point about you being able to print "fire" in a crowded theatre.

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by ssibal


How do we determine intent? That is what a trial is for, which he waived for whatever reason.
How is a trial going to determine the intent of someone? Would the jury and him be plugged into the matrix where his thoughts could be monitored? Seriously, there's no way we can be sure of someone's intent. Rejecting the trial sounded like a good idea considering the danger that he'd be imprisoned for 20 years as opposed to a few months.

I am stating my opinion. Given the nature of the site I do not believe that the information was allowed to be posted for legitimate educational purposes.

Your argument would be perfect if and only if the website only contained information on how to create bombs and was authored by the man in question. This isn't the case. It's just another website with some screwy views that allows whoever post whatever they want.


Or maybe he did not even bother looking at what other people were posting on his site? Then he may have just been negligent, I do not think he was though.
Negligence is one thing, but being charged with a federal crime is another.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Chaos


If someone wants to find out how to build a bomb, he won´t check anarchist websites; he´ll probably just google a few keywords.

And if someone wants to find out where an abortion doctor lives to vandalize his house or terrorize him and his family, he will not check anti abortion websites that post that personal information, he will probably look in the phone book......

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek


But there are different standards for each. Which was my point about you being able to print "fire" in a crowded theatre.

So do you think people should be allowed to print whatver they want or do you agree that there should be limits on some things?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy

How is a trial going to determine the intent of someone? Would the jury and him be plugged into the matrix where his thoughts could be monitored? Seriously, there's no way we can be sure of someone's intent. [/B]

The same way they determine if a cop mistakingly shot an innocent bystander or just thought it was fun to kill someone or determining if a guy accidentaly drove into a pedestrian or if he was emulating a video game.


Your argument would be perfect if and only if the website only contained information on how to create bombs and was authored by the man in question. This isn't the case. It's just another website with some screwy views that allows whoever post whatever they want.

How is that any different from allowing someone to post child pornography on your server? Oh, I guess if a pedophile wants to look at child porn they will use google instead so its OK to allow it to be posted.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
So do you think people should be allowed to print whatver they want or do you agree that there should be limits on some things?

I've already answered this. It should be limited only when it DIRECTLY harms others.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek


I've already answered this. It should be limited only when it DIRECTLY harms others.

Sorry, I forgot you had written that. I respectfully disagree though.

[Tony]

Originally posted by ssibal


Sorry, I forgot you had written that. I respectfully disagree though.

The constitution says otherwise.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Tony


The constitution says otherwise.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.



I do not see anything in there about exceptions concerning the direct harm of people, do you?

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by ssibal


The same way they determine if a cop mistakingly shot an innocent bystander or just thought it was fun to kill someone or determining if a guy accidentaly drove into a pedestrian or if he was emulating a video game.

Hold on.. This has nothing to do with the situation at hand, unless someone was actually killed using the information posted on the Net...

Second, the only thing you're going to determine is how believable the cop is OR the prosecution is. You're still not going to be able to determine the actual intent.


How is that any different from allowing someone to post child pornography on your server? Oh, I guess if a pedophile wants to look at child porn they will use google instead so its OK to allow it to be posted.
It's not child pornography we're talking about here. Child pornography is by itself illegal and it's not easy to obtain. I noticed you have a passion for flawed analogies. Nice try with the "extreme shock angle" though.

Information on how to make an explosive is very widely available and can be obtained anywhere, including in school chemistry books!

Using your own logic, maybe we should stop teaching people chemistry since they can make just about any explosive on earth or even worse, they could make some deadly poisons!

[ImpyTimpy]

Neither do I... So who was harmed again?

Originally posted by ssibal


I do not see anything in there about exceptions concerning the direct harm of people, do you?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy

Hold on.. This has nothing to do with the situation at hand, unless someone was actually killed using the information posted on the Net...[/B]

It has everything to do with the situation because you asked "How is a trial going to determine the intent of someone." Well, here are examples of how trials determine the intent of people.

Second, the only thing you're going to determine is how believable the cop is OR the prosecution is. You're still not going to be able to determine the actual intent.

Then they would have determined how 'believeable' Sherman or the prosecution was. The point is that it is done all the time and it can still be done had he decided to go to trial. And the excuse for waiving the trial that he probably would have gotten 20 years in prison is ridiculous. If he was not breaking the law, why make a plea deal? If you are arrested for a murder that you did not commit are you going to make a plea deal because you may get the death sentence?

It's not child pornography we're talking about here. Child pornography is by itself illegal and it's not easy to obtain. I noticed you have a passion for flawed analogies. Nice try with the "extreme shock angle" though.

You misunderstand the use of the analogy. The point I was trying to make is that Sherman had a responsibility to monitor what was on his site and he was liable if something illegal (such as bomb making instructions with intent to harm others) was posted on his website.

Information on how to make an explosive is very widely available and can be obtained anywhere, including in school chemistry books!

Using your own logic, maybe we should stop teaching people chemistry since they can make just about any explosive on earth or even worse, they could make some deadly poisons!

I will repeat, the issue is not bomb making instructions per se. It is the intent of posting them. Chemistry teachers do not post bomb instructions so that their students can blow up other people or property. But the original author of that site probably did post those bomb instructions for that reason. And Sherman hosted the information thus making him liable.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Neither do I... So who was harmed again?



My point is that the First Ammendment does not state that there are ANY exceptions. Shanek thinks their should be exceptions only if people are directly harmed. I agree with that and take it a step further. But either way, the constitution says nothing about exceptions thus it is open for interpretation.

[ssibal]

As you can see from the link I posted, the bomb making instructions were not posted for legitimate educational purposes:

Homemade explosives work very well in riots. There is a huge history of the military using homemade explosives in war, so if it works for them, it can work against them. Click on the links for construction methods.

So, I think we can agree that the original author posted this with the intent of harming others.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
I do not see anything in there about exceptions concerning the direct harm of people, do you?

It says FREEDOM of speech. Forceful activity is not free.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek


It says FREEDOM of speech. Forceful activity is not free.

Threatening to kill someone is not forceful activity. Worst case scenario is you sacre someone, what if the person does not care? Either way what are you forcing? How about saying that an asteroid is going to hit Earth? You can get the same scare effect as threatening to kill someone.